Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who owns the houses, though? In a nearby neighborhood, a good number are empty, but the banks aren't renting, keeping rent pretty high. People want to rent cheap, but there aren't enough cheap places.
Calling Occupy, come in Occupy, where are you when we need you?
Banks don't rent houses. Nor are they in the house selling business, or they weren't until recently. Mortgages are bundled and sold. It's impossible to know who owns the vacant houses, most likely a company in Europe. The banks here have long since sold those mortgages to a huge company that doesn't spend their time selling houses.
If owners of rental properties can charge high rent and get it, why wouldn't they do that?
That's local governments redistributing income from renters to owners. Give renters more options and rents will necessarily moderate.
Student loan debt is what is absolutely crushing many younger people today, and there have been many articles indicating it has slowed down economic growth as younger people have less money to spend to help bolster the economy. I have a Bachelor's Degree, yet I am underemployed, by choice, because I earn more money doing what I do now than I was earning utilizing my degree at a bank. Now I'm at a disadvantage, though, in that I pay $230/month towards student loans for a worthless education. My monthly student loan burden is a drop in the bucket compared to what many peers of mine currently are paying.
I can most certainly concur that the cost-of-living has consistently risen more rapidly than the rise in real wages over the past decade, at least, if not longer, and it has really squeezed the middle-class and lower-middle-class. I'm working 70 hours per week, on average, but I also net over $3,000 per month, on average. Through conscientious spending I used $1,000 to eradicate most of my credit card debt in March, which has helped push my credit score upwards. I then was able to put $1,000 into savings in April and anticipate being able to do the same this month. If I continue to live frugally while working myself to the core for the next year I should have $12,000 saved towards the down payment/closing costs on my first home in early-2014. Right now we rent for $700/month ($350 split with my partner). Pittsburgh is rare in that it has habitable (albeit tiny and in dire need of cosmetic repairs/upgrades) homes for $50,000. We've found homes we like listed at $40,000. If we were to put 20% down, then that would be $8,000. Assuming we'd receive a seller's assist towards closing costs we could start paying half as much monthly towards a mortgage than we currently do in rent by early next year. I'd instead continue current working/frugality trends, make double mortgage payments, and have that $40,000 home ($32,000 mortgage) paid off in three years. Once the home is paid off I'd then use the money saved to invest and/or buy rental properties.
I'm 26. My goal is to be debt-free by 32. My goal is attainable through consistent hard work and penny-pinching. That goal is attainable for others, also. That $40,000 won't be a "dream home" and won't host lavish galas, but it WILL be a very affordable roof over our heads that will be sustainable should either my partner or I lose our job after buying it. Except for only the most expensive parts of the country (NYC, SF Bay Area, DC/NoVA, Boston, etc.) most cities also have "starter" studios/efficiencies, mobile homes, etc. priced under $100,000. It may not be glamorous, but you can then pay it off quickly and use that equity towards buying the home of your dreams.
With that being said I don't believe we younger people today are "entitled" or "greedy". My parents' generation mostly bought their homes in their early-to-mid-20s instead of their late-20s or early-30s. They had a better outlook about their financial futures, overall, and had children when they were younger instead of delaying having children until their 30s like many today do. We're not living THAT much longer than a generation ago, which means more and more grandkids will grow up barely knowing their grandparents because a harsh economic climate forced each generation to delay childbirth an extra decade. More middle-aged people will be squeezed simultaneously raising children and providing end-of-life care for their parents. All my generation wants is a comparable quality-of-life to what our parents' generation had when they were our age. We don't have that right now.
Huh? I've never known anyone who bought a house before 30. How could they? Most professionals are still in graduate school until their late 20's. My parents bought their first house in their 30's, in 1963. We were 35. Why do you expect to have it easier than previous generations?
College tuition wouldn't be able to continue to rise if the government stopped encouraging student loans and stopped backing them up. Because the democrats LOVE higher education, they keep funneling money into it. As long as the government keeps doing that, tuition prices will continue to rise because there is no incentive for the colleges to do anything else. If colleges had to be truly competitive, without the government props, they would be forced to lower their costs. Lower costs equals less financial burden on students.
Why would you choose to not have a professional job where you could earn as much money and work half the time? Why choose to work 70 hours at a job that I am assuming offers no benefits? Why not use your degree? Or are you working around a graduate school schedule? We did that for years in our 20's. At one point my husband worked 3 different jobs while in graduate school. He didn't finish until he was 32. But he was never in debt and always managed to save, even if it was a small amount.
Kids in their 20's today don't have it any worse than any previous generation, many of whom began working at terrible, back breaking jobs, while still in their teens. Ask your grandparents about their 'easy life' or your great grandparents. You're lucky, you have a degree and could choose to work at a professional job. Most previous generations didn't have that luxury. They had to begin work at a very young age to eat and to often to feed their extended family. Times were tough. What you're going through today is nothing compared to what those before you did to make it in America. You have choices. Most of them didn't.
That's local governments redistributing income from renters to owners. Give renters more options and rents will necessarily moderate.
Local governments own the homes? How is local government involved? Home ownership is a free market, isn't it? Anyone can choose to invest in a home and rent it out. Rent is determined by supply and demand. Isn't it?
giving poor people more money for the work they do hurts poor people the most...yeah right.
sure it hurts teens (subsidy kids) but not the adults working those jobs for a living.
Raising the minimum wage puts people OUT of work. A small business can only afford so much. If it costs him twice as much to hire people, he cuts back on the number of new hires. It's not difficult. Higher the minimum wage, the fewer people get jobs. More unemployed, more poor people.
Last edited by RosemaryNThyme; 05-09-2013 at 02:59 PM..
Local governments own the homes? How is local government involved? Home ownership is a free market, isn't it? Anyone can choose to invest in a home and rent it out. Rent is determined by supply and demand. Isn't it?
Local governments set tax rates. Homeowners don't pay the same tax that rental properties pay typically there are exemptions only available to homeowners.
Local governments own the homes? How is local government involved? Home ownership is a free market, isn't it? Anyone can choose to invest in a home and rent it out. Rent is determined by supply and demand. Isn't it?
If home ownership were a free market, a property owner would be able to sell me a 2,500 sq ft piece of land, with a tiny house in which I could live. The vast majority of Americans have local governments which do not allow this option, therefore one can hardly claim that home ownership is a free market.
Local governments do not own the homes, but local governments do artificially restrict the supply of homes below the supply that the private sector would provide in a free market. Local governments also, obviously, further restrict ownership opportunities for those with low incomes.
Thomas Sowell has demonstrated that, through zoning and housing regulations, local governments redistribute income upward from (generally relatively lower-income) renters to (generally relatively higher income) homeowners. Surely you can't refute such a world-class economist.
Raising the minimum wage puts people OUT of work. A small business can only afford so much. If it costs him twice as much to hire people, he cuts back on the number or new hires. It's not difficult. Higher the minimum wage, the fewer people get jobs.
right...the ones put out of work are likely to be the least-qualified and least-experienced, so teens will lose their jobs and adults will keep their jobs while earning higher wages. minimum-wage jobs generally have high turnover, so even if some lose their jobs, turnover is always making minimum wage jobs available to those who need them.
If home ownership were a free market, a property owner would be able to sell me a 2,500 sq ft piece of land, with a tiny house in which I could live. The vast majority of Americans have local governments which do not allow this option, therefore one can hardly claim that home ownership is a free market.
Local governments do not own the homes, but local governments do artificially restrict the supply of homes below the supply that the private sector would provide in a free market. Local governments also, obviously, further restrict ownership opportunities for those with low incomes.
Thomas Sowell has demonstrated that, through zoning and housing regulations, local governments redistribute income upward from (generally relatively lower-income) renters to (generally relatively higher income) homeowners. Surely you can't refute such a world-class economist.
I know what homes you're talking about. There are alternatives such as apartments and condos, but unfortunately they aren't separate units, and it's unlikely you'll have land.
...however there are a number of these in my state, though the cheap ones are a long commute away from the cities that offer jobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
